Bourdieu 2: key ideas and criticismsThe habitus- collective habit, the habits of a social group, their patterns of conduct (e.g. their tastes). Incorporates custom and tradition which it unconsciously produces. Agents' actions have more meaning than they know…an 'objective intention' which outstrips their knowledge of what they do (see also the Lads' actions in Giddens for a parallel). The habitus coordinates our activities across different spheres of life enabling social order to continue, to be reproduced

Combines schemes or mental maps with objective structures through practices e.g. consumption which can be seen both as agency and structure (hence similar to Giddens' duality of structure). We know the taste of the group and can reproduce the group through applying the codes or schemes of correct taste. Our habitus enables us to sense being ‘out of place’, not a virtuoso or natural in that context- to see the habitus of other groups. See Beverley Skeggs in Puwar, 2003

Fields- our distinctions, tastes etc. are applied across a range of different areas or fields, which give a coherent picture of the individual in their many activities. Each field has its own logic and perform successfully we must have the necessary codes or cultural capital to operate within it, a ‘feel for the game’…This can be as subtle as body language. When we enter a field which is the product of our (group) habitus then we are ontologically complicit with it, at home- a fish in rather than out of water.
Fields as specialisation- influence of Weber

Interests- optimising forms of capital. Individuals are driven by the desire to maximise their social position by accumulating various forms of capital, economic, cultural, symbolic, social etc. They form groups to be more effective in doing this.

Agonistic individuals- we’re basically competitive individuals (compare with Weber) but we come together where our interests are similar.The competitive desire to be part of legitimate culture –expressed in cultural goodwill (support for the dominant culture)- is nothing more than an attempt to change one’s position re middle class cultural domination by achieving a sense of legitimacy/legitimate status re cultural and symbolic capital of the 'right sort' . In Distinction Bourdieu discusses how the lower middle classes carve out a status through their leisure pursuits- yoga, homeopathy, vegetarianism, jazz etc. and other forms of specialist knowledge or esoteria which might gain recognition/respect within legitimate culture as 'bohemian' lifestyle. See also Bourdieu's cultural intermediaries here in du Gay (ed) The Production of Culture...
CriticismsOveremphasises class at the expense of other markers of social position e.g. ‘race’, gender, nationality, religion.
Homogenises individuals and thus ignores diversity. Are we governed by a normative consensus or do we recognise plurality and difference? (e.g. multicultural societies/ideology). His statistical (survey research) method gives the ’average person’. People in any class position might have a range of cultural experiences which overlap with those of members of other groups in some way.
Difficulty in explaining social change - action is largely unconscious and habitual/traditional (fails to explain his own career!). Lack of reflexivity, distance from what we do….it’s as if habit has replaced thought
Improvisations lack the creative, unpredictable, novel aspect .
Resistance: not all alternative culture is recuperable by the middle classes...persistence of a 'counterculture' politically and artistically opposed to capitalist commodification of everyday life etc.

See Swingewood, Bruce Robbins, Parker, Callinicos etc. for critical
commentaries